Are WMDs gonna be used as a last resort by insurgents?

ballz2wallz · 02-20-2007, 11:22 AM

Unfortunately, it seems gas bombs are going off with success now in Iraq.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A cloud of deadly toxic gas engulfed an Iraqi town Tuesday, killing six people and leaving dozens of others choking on fumes after a tanker carrying chlorine exploded outside a restaurant.

An Iraqi Interior Ministry officials said the blast in the town of Taji, 12 miles (20 km) north of Baghdad, was caused by a bomb on board the tanker.

This after another one didn't detonate in the blast, but was found. An another was supposedly planned to kill 20k in Jordan.

So this begs the question, what are insurgents and terrorists resorting to? Where are they obtaining these weapons? Why do people seriously believe these same insurgents and terrorists would not obtain nukes if Iran and others have them?

DosEquis · 02-20-2007, 12:22 PM

The main "weapon" in the CNN story is just a tanker carrying chlorine. I hardly call that a weapon of mass destruction. Next thing we will have the ammonia/bleach bombs and other household cleaners being used and the Sean hannity types will say SEE!! WMD!!

Donkey® · 02-20-2007, 12:28 PM

Stretch. More than a stretch but I can't think of the word at this point in time.

ballz2wallz · 02-20-2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The main "weapon" in the CNN story is just a tanker carrying chlorine. I hardly call that a weapon of mass destruction. Next thing we will have the ammonia/bleach bombs and other household cleaners being used and the Sean hannity types will say SEE!! WMD!!

It was more the BBC story I was referring to with WMDs.

kinggovernor · 02-20-2007, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The main "weapon" in the CNN story is just a tanker carrying chlorine. I hardly call that a weapon of mass destruction. Next thing we will have the ammonia/bleach bombs and other household cleaners being used and the Sean hannity types will say SEE!! WMD!!

we used to call them NBC weapons, for Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons, if someone were to blow up a chemical plant it would cause some serious damage and havoc

DosEquis · 02-20-2007, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we used to call them NBC weapons, for Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons, if someone were to blow up a chemical plant it would cause some serious damage and havoc

I do not doubt they would cause significant problems. My issue is that people will start using it as a way to refer back to the original case for war, and feel some sort of self justification.

ballz2wallz · 02-20-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I do not doubt they would cause significant problems. My issue is that people will start using it as a way to refer back to the original case for war, and feel some sort of self justification.

No, that's not going to happen. It's too easy to assume they are getting them from someone else...someone higher up, like a government.

I'm now making a case for the fact that governments, such as Iran, could easily be supplying these groups with such weapons, and this is the exact reason why Iran should not have nukes. If these groups have these weapons, they're not making them in the backs of the their caves. These are high tech weapons.

DosEquis · 02-20-2007, 02:24 PM

I do not believe they would give an insurgency or terrorist organization access to a nuclear weapon. They cost to much and there is to much at risk if they actually used it. The nuclear weapon is merely a bargaining tool for a position on the national stage. It is for a position of power, a position they would no longer have if they actually used it.

ballz2wallz · 02-20-2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I do not believe they would give an insurgency or terrorist organization access to a nuclear weapon. They cost to much and there is to much at risk if they actually used it.

How is that any different than a chemical weapon that could wipe out 20k people?

kinggovernor · 02-20-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I do not believe they would give an insurgency or terrorist organization access to a nuclear weapon. They cost to much and there is to much at risk if they actually used it. The nuclear weapon is merely a bargaining tool for a position on the national stage. It is for a position of power, a position they would no longer have if they actually used it.

there are easier cheaper ways to kill mass numbers

Kytro · 02-20-2007, 06:46 PM

I'm not sure it is that difficult to obtain dangerous chemicals. Terrorists will use whatever they can get their hands on, I suspect. Unlike nations, they re not as worried about reprisals.

Diesel66 · 02-20-2007, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not sure it is that difficult to obtain dangerous chemicals.

They drive through town all day long.

RMNIXON · 02-20-2007, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I do not doubt they would cause significant problems. My issue is that people will start using it as a way to refer back to the original case for war, and feel some sort of self justification.

I must admit if they had something really nasty they would have used it before now. They are just putting together what they have like the IEDs.

I still think it possible that some WMD may have made its way into Syria? But if it did the military in Syria probably have control over it and would be wise not to tip their hand if they do have it?